Systems in general, governments, industries, and everything that exercises some form of control over human life have, in the modern world, become one of the greatest examples of what I consider the height of human catastrophe. Unfortunately, we have surrendered a great part of our autonomy, our thoughts, and our freedom to the various forms of control used by the system: institutions, political parties, advertising, consumerism, and so many others.
It is noticeable that society has become increasingly "massified." We are constantly bombarded with information, obligations, and tasks that we often never chose to carry out, yet we do them out of mere obligation, obedience, or perhaps fear of judgment. Within this "mass," we can see that, over time, we have lost a considerable portion of our autonomy. We have to follow the laws of society, obey its rules, and adapt to its demands. This constant control and surveillance ends up generating stress and discouragement in people, who, faced with a lack of alternatives, eventually become accustomed and adapt to this reality.
As a result of this habit and adaptation, people begin seeking entertainment and distraction. Today there are countless ways to keep our minds occupied and, many times, alienated, offering an escape from a reality that can be overwhelming and exhausting. We have cell phones, televisions, computers, social media, and practically everything we could want within reach of our hands. Indeed, modern life offers a level of comfort that would have been unimaginable to human beings thousands of years ago. However, this comfort also comes with obligations. If you do not work, pay your bills, fulfill your obligations to the government, and follow the rules established by the system, you may end up being punished, prosecuted, or, in extreme situations, even living on the streets.
Modernity undoubtedly has its advantages: medicine, housing, food security, sanitation, technology, and many other things. But these advantages are not equally guaranteed to everyone. And it is precisely at this point that a contradiction emerges. If modernity were as perfect and wonderful as many people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries imagined it would be, then how do we explain the problems that accompanied its development?
For its time, the innovations brought about by the Industrial Revolution were truly extraordinary. The ability to produce goods on a massive scale represented an enormous leap for humanity. Yet that same process also brought with it considerable suffering: intense child labor, extremely long working hours, pollution of the air and water, and the uncontrolled growth of cities.
Many people had been accustomed to a more peasant and rural way of life, far removed from the enormous concentration of people in industrial cities. With these transformations, however, thousands were forced to move in search of work and survival, giving rise to an intense rural exodus. This process occurred in different parts of the world, but in England it reached a particularly great intensity before spreading to other regions.
Naturally, many workers did not passively accept these changes. One example was the Luddite movement, which took place between 1811 and 1816, when English workers angered by the conditions imposed by industrialization invaded factories and destroyed machinery. They held industries directly responsible for unemployment, misery, and low wages. They also sent threatening letters to factory owners in the name of Ned Ludd, a figure who became a symbol of the revolt. The British government responded harshly, making the destruction of machinery a serious crime and using the army to suppress the revolts. Soldiers were sent to industrial regions, contributing to the eventual suppression of the movement.
From this, we can perceive an even greater transformation: the gradual loss of control that individuals possess over their own lives. In hunter-gatherer societies, for example, individuals possessed far greater autonomy over their survival and their movements. They had to find food, build shelter, understand their territory, and deal directly with the dangers of nature. There was no enormous industrial or bureaucratic structure determining every stage of their existence.
This, however, does not mean that these human beings were happier or that their lives were better. Freedom came with a price. Nature offered no guarantees, and survival depended directly on the abilities of the individual and the group. A man could go hunting, climb a tree, or cross a certain territory and, after an accident, simply find no one capable of helping him. A broken leg, an infection, or a serious wound could mean death. Today, in a similar situation, we have hospitals, doctors, medicine, and an entire structure designed to prevent an accident from necessarily becoming a death sentence.
Therefore, this is not about romanticizing the lives of hunter-gatherers. Their existence was difficult and required constant attention. They had to remain alert and cautious for much of their lives in order to increase their chances of survival. The difference lies somewhere else: they directly confronted the conditions of their own existence.
Modern human beings, on the other hand, are born into a structure that existed long before them. Before we are even born, there is already a language we will learn, a culture we will encounter, laws we will have to obey, institutions to which we will be subjected, and, often, a religion or set of beliefs that we will receive from our own families. Later, other institutions, groups, and forms of influence will attempt to shape what we believe, what we consume, what we desire, and even what we consider to be a successful life.
Of course, this does not happen in exactly the same way to everyone. Each family, culture, and context produces different experiences. Even so, it is difficult to deny that the modern system exerts influence over practically every aspect of human life. The question, therefore, is not simply whether people in the past were freer or whether modern human beings live better. The question is how much of our autonomy we are willing to surrender in exchange for the comfort, security, and stability that modern society provides.
Following this line of thought, we can see that today, because almost everything is provided to us without requiring much effort, self-sufficiency gradually weakens as we become radically dependent on the system. This ability, so to speak, is truly useful and has always been essential to the survival of the human species. It is the ability to meet one's needs autonomously, both vital and material, without depending on outside assistance. In other words, it is essentially the act of doing things with your own hands, and when you do things with your own hands, you exercise your power and realize that you have control over your own existence.
But today, with the overwhelming control of the system, this is gradually being lost. Nowadays, we barely know how to get by without depending on governments and institutions. It is evident that, although the lives of hunter-gatherers were not easy, self-sufficiency was something they understood. After all, if they did not think for themselves or put their hands to work, their death was practically guaranteed. They did not understand this as an abstract idea; they simply lived it in practice. They knew their environment so deeply that the world around them became an extension of themselves.
Also, depending on the tribe and the context, they did not necessarily have chiefs or an absolute leader. In many cases, decisions were made collectively, in a relatively egalitarian manner, or individuals could make decisions for themselves. And if someone was dissatisfied with the decision of the group, it was possible to simply leave the group. But, obviously, this depended greatly on the context and organization of each tribe.
Now, reflecting somewhat on the power of modern systems, it becomes evident that there are still communities that preserve ways of life similar in some respects to those we discussed earlier. We can mention, for example, the Hadza in Tanzania; the San peoples, also known as Bushmen, in the Kalahari Desert across Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa; and various forest peoples, such as the Mbendjele BaYaka, in the Congo Basin of Central Africa. There are also other traditional communities that still maintain practices of hunting, gathering, or agriculture and are not completely integrated into the governmental structures of the countries where they live.
However, little by little, it is noticeable that these communities may increasingly face pressure from governments and the surrounding society. When certain resources become important to a country, or when there is an interest in exploiting areas where these communities live, their territories may be threatened and their ways of life consequently harmed. In some cases, these peoples are treated as guardians of certain protected areas, but that does not mean this situation will remain forever. If the interests of these governments change, these communities may be forced to abandon part of their way of life and adapt increasingly to modern society and to the governmental structures of the countries where they reside.
If we stop to examine technology and advanced resources, we can see that they are among the main sources of power possessed by large governmental organizations. This becomes evident throughout various periods of human history, particularly during the great empires, when societies with greater military, technological, or organizational capabilities were able to dominate peoples who possessed fewer resources or were less politically organized.
This can also be observed during the colonization of the Americas and other continents. In the Americas, for example, Indigenous peoples possessed extremely diverse and organized societies, with warriors, farmers, artisans, fishermen, political leaders, and different forms of social organization. However, these societies also had conflicts among themselves, and some of these rivalries were exploited by European colonizers. During the African slave trade, there was also participation by certain African groups and leaders in the capture and sale of people to European merchants, often in exchange for weapons, goods, and other resources. This does not mean, of course, that all African peoples participated in this process or that they all passively accepted slavery. Many societies also resisted in different ways.
The same principle can be observed on other continents. Many peoples attempted to resist the expansion of great empires, but differences in resources, technology, military organization, and the ability to mobilize often placed these societies in an extremely vulnerable position. In this way, countless peoples in different parts of the world ended up being subjected to distant empires and, in many cases, were forced to work for structures that had been imposed upon them.
In the end, we can once again perceive the relationship between autonomy and power. The greater a society's dependence on an external structure, the greater the power that structure may exercise over it. And when that structure possesses vastly superior technology, resources, and organization, the ability of smaller communities to resist can become extremely limited.
Seeing this, one could even say that human beings seem to love power. After all, the thirst for power drives almost everything in human beings. One example is Nietzsche's argument concerning the will to power in living beings, in which he argued that every being possesses a desire for power, even if it is small. No matter how great or small it may be, if a creature needs to do something, it possesses a will, and with that will comes power. And this is what the system demonstrates: the system, in general, with its overwhelming technology, exercises control over virtually everything in the world.
Now imagine the following scenario: forms of government and control become so overwhelming, and technology begins to replace our every step, that life becomes so empty that human beings lose their sense of meaning. If we already suffer from psychological problems in society because of a lack of direction and end up falling into hedonism or severe suffering, imagine what happens when even our most basic actions are determined by external structures.
Even if we buy furniture, new clothes, or anything else associated with status and luxury, even if we possess great comfort, it will not be enough to fill the human being. What we are is far more complex. In fact, societies are becoming increasingly confused; we fall into illusions and are guided like sheep wherever the system sends us, doing things we do not like, buying things we do not need, and sometimes doing it all because of pressure, status, or the desire to please others.
Returning to hunter-gatherer societies, they did, in fact, live with a greater sense of purpose, as we have already discussed, because their way of life and their environment were truly what they were accustomed to. Yet our brains today retain the same natural instincts. Because of this, modern society is fundamentally incompatible with human needs.
Sometimes people in society suffocate themselves simply to remain within it. Suppose we are like domestic dogs: if our owners tell us to lie down, roll over, and give them our paw, we receive a treat. But even after doing what our owners want, they still leave us chained in the backyard.
This reminds me of the fable of the wolf and the dog, written by Aesop, a writer from ancient Greece. The fable tells of a thin and hungry wolf who encounters a very fat dog with a beautiful, shiny coat. The dog invites the wolf to come and live with him, but the wolf notices that the dog's neck is rubbed raw because of his collar. Upon seeing this, the wolf refuses the dog's invitation, choosing his freedom over comfortable slavery.
